Ron Paul on More Troops: Why Trump’s ISIS Strategy Will Fail

After nearly 14 years of US military action in Iraq, significant parts of the country remain occupied by an ISIS that did not exist before the 2013 US “liberation.” The occupation that followed the 2013 US invasion of Iraq fueled the resentment that led to the rise of militants, which in turn led Washington to believe it needed to continue its military presence in Iraq, which led to the creation of more militants. It’s a never-ending cycle that it seems will be continued under President Trump’s new strategy to defeat ISIS. No one benefits from this cycle except the Beltway defense contractors and think tanks. More in today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

20 thoughts on “Ron Paul on More Troops: Why Trump’s ISIS Strategy Will Fail”

  1. And so, it’s sounds like Ron Paul is trying to place the blame for Trump’s admin on Pence!
    At least that was about it at the 14 minute mark, and I don’t have the patience to wait for some real criticism of Trump that probably didn’t come. Just more faith in Trump.

    Although, it’s pretty obvious that Ron doesn’t understand the Iraq oil situation when he says the US isn’t going to own it. And it looks like it’s too deep to understand for this antiwar site. Anybody who wants to understand better, lemme know.

    And one thing for sure, Ron doesn’t understand why the big demonization and push against Russia. And even if he did he wouldn’t be able to state it truthfully. He would be labelled a traitor for revealing US foreign policy.

    Nope, there’s no good going to come out of listening to Ron Paul and his sidekick he winds up to ask him questions.

    1. There is absolutely a divide between Trump and Pence, others in the executive.

      The hope is Trump gets up the courage to stand on his own. Trump’s instincts are antiwar. Trump just needs to realise he’s as smart as he pretends to be.

      Antiwar group is absolutely superior to you on foreign policy. These folks have opposed every war, and as a group they’ve been right on the whole. God emperor Donald Trump is intellectually supported by shadow god emperor Justin Raimondo, who is one of the big bosses here. That’s not to say Trump is even aware of antiwar; but Trump doesn’t make sense except as a man seeking antiwar positions in the dark.

      1. Trump is not antiwar. Trump only believes that he can bargain with US victim countries and win everything the US wishes for in that way. He likely believes that he can convince Putin to give back the Crimea and give up all of the Ukraine to a US sympathetic puppet so that the Ukraine can be taken into the Nato fold.

        Easy simple task right? And no doubt the sanctions against Russia would be dropped. Right?

        Do you think it’s possible that Trump doesn’t understand that Nato is essential to the US in order to accomplish those goals? Or do you think that perhaps Trump knew all along how essential Nato is to the US agenda for Russia.

        You never know, he could be as stupid as we imagine him to be!

        Oh, and once you get it figured out, how about telling Raimondo?

        1. Trump has said he didn’t care about Crimea. He’s being pressured into taking a position he doesn’t want on Crimea.

          NATO is not essential for anything. As Trump said: NATO is outdated.

          And the EU has been a major mistake. It is completely anti-democratic. Trump needs to hit the *undo* button on US foreign policy.

          I don’t know Raimondo. I’ve just been reading him for years. And I’ve never caught him in the wrong. I’m not even libertarian. He’s just the best guy on foreign policy who keeps up with things. Tremendous asset.

          1. If WWIII starts, it’ll be because of NATO, especially if NATO continues to expand.

            America First served America well, and we should return to it. George Washington’s foreign policy is best.

  2. Trump is fighting “Radical Islam.” The magical term that Obama would not say. Trump gets his news from the idiot box and who controls that? The war party.

    Trump is going to get into a quagmire. I’m glad that Rand said that about McCain. He was right. I think we need someone with the balls to stand up to the Saudi lobby the next presidential election. All the Republican candidates in the last election had “Radical Islam” on their lips. Trump is going to fight it. His actions may make no sense from the perspective of American security but thats because “Radical Islam” is a nonsense term. Trump wants safe zones on the Gulf States dime. He obviously is working for them to some extent so what does he and them have in mind for the US? I think war with Iran and its allies, especially if someone else is going to pay for it. Syria is vital enough for Russia for it to jump into a quagmire to aid Assad. Trump is an extrovert and speaks his mind so his words maybe considering ideas rather than certain future policy implementations. The good news is that the US political class is too foolish (good for us) to know how to communicate and manipulate him for their own devious ends. New information may change his opinion. The problem is that he was always a Netanyahu fan. They get along pretty good. The Saudis have successfully gained access (if they didn’t already have it). This is not about Assad but Iran and Hezbollah. Israel does not want Iran in Syria and they want Trump to kick them out:

    How is the US going to have better relations with Russia with this policy? There are no good guys in the Middle East, only victims. Trump is trying to turn the Empire into a sustainable business. The John McCain way is no longer affordable. Trump is moving towards the Athenian way. He hasn’t wisen up to the fact that he needs to tax NATO members 2% or more of their GDP rather than have them pay for their own security (which they will try to avoid) plus the cost of any wars on their behalf.

    1. With all due respects to idiots, you’re a very confused person. Here’s why:
      Obama wouldn’t use the term, ‘Islam’ or ‘the Islamic world’ or ‘Muslims’. He understood perfectly well that the fight was against ‘radical Islam’.

      And there were very good reasons why Obama wouldn’t use those terms. It was simply because he knew that to use those terms would be to frame the enemy incorrectly. And doing that would create more enemies. He had the foresight to understand that the US didn’t want to alienate the Muslim world.

      But apparently you aren’t capable of understanding that? Is it too complicated for you? Or is it really just something to do with your hate for Obama because of his skin colour that makes him uppity?

      We need to be more proactive against pigs like you. You’re a waste of good air. Either that or show us you can understand the simple stuff?

      1. What is it with narcissist and projection? If only you had more gray matter in your left anterior insula. Sigh…

        I know why Obama didn’t say it. That wasn’t the point of my post. If you listened to a Republican in the last couple of years you would hear them accuse Obama of not saying “Radical Islam.” Every debate. Ron’s own son was obsessed with it and missed his chance to speak truth to power.

        I was talking about why the Republicans used the term to shepherd their idiot villagers wherever they pleased on the issue of the war on terror. It was a convenient term for them to weasel their way out of critical thinking on the war on terror. No one really tried to put them on the spot. Now Trump is doing his thing and people are like jeez what will he do? No one bothered to pin any of these clowns down in the last election on who exactly they were referring to and now we are at a situation similar to 2003 where the public can be fed a lot of crap and a war can be started by saying Iran is aiding ISIS and seeking nukes.

        1. I thought Trump did as well as he could with a Neocon manipulated Republican electorate.

          Whether knowingly or not, Trump was able to win Republicans and Independents by appealing to both groups.

          Voters don’t seem to reward clear arguments. They seem to vote on emotions. I know of an Iraq War opponent who voted for Kasich in the primary – my own father. His explanation was that Kasich appeared calmer.

          As for pinning candidates down, the media was just focused on destroying Trump. It did not want Trump to communicate new ideas, so it did not ask real questions. The mainstream media today is just a group of propaganda orgs. Similarly, it doesn’t want Ron Paul to speak.

          1. Trump did extraordinarily well but he could have gotten away with pretty much anything except attacking Israel. Trump always had a muddled policy in the Middle East. Nothing prevented him from educating Americans on it. The whole Republican party was talking variations of this “Radical Islam” stuff. Kasich, Paul, Trump, Cruz, all of them talked this disingenuous crazy talk (or possibly its sincere crazy talk). It was rehearsed. It was propaganda and confusion that they wanted to get across. I would love to know the source of it. Someone came up with it for the Republican parrots. It was basically a new term representing the ever shifting enemies in Bush and Obama’s cynical war on terror in the Middle East.

            It surprises me that no one was really interested in setting the record straight and going after these people. We’ve had information that could be used such as the DIA report. The Gulf States supporting Al Qaeda in Syria should have been big news and American support for them should have been debated. Should the US ally with the people who attacked it on 9/11? That should have been a question for the public to decide. I think the American people should have been given a clear option and they weren’t. It goes to show just how corrupt the news media is.

            Can you imagine in World War II, the US is at war with Germany and the Republicans call Nazism, “Radical Nordicism” and have a policy of bombing everyone except for Germany while aiding the Nazis in their conquest under spreading democracy. They would say, “FDR refuses to say the name of the enemy.” Dramatic pause. “The enemy is Radical Nordicism. The Soviet Union is the greatest sponsor of “Radical Nordicism.” They should use the real terms like Nazism, Wahabbism, and Salafism. They won’t because that would limit the scope of the war and force Trump to answer tough questions about American foreign policy.

          2. It’s at least out that Obama backed ISIS. Trump did a lot of good with his willingness to break the mould.

            Tulsi Gabbard is making a name for herself on the issue.

            I would love for Americans to be better educated about real issues, but part of democracy seems to require that voters be kept ignorant lest they wield real power :p

    2. It’s positive that Trump demands someone other than just US tax payers support the empire.

      I agree I don’t like Trump’s position on Iran. And the Syrian safe zones have always been a bad idea. Raimondo was an early critic of them, btw, as were others here I’m sure.

      You mentioned China in the other thread: Did you see how China is ready to negotiate on N. Korea? Things could turn out well for Trump. Or we could have nuclear war. I agree I don’t like everything Trump is doing, but he is an improvement over McCain/Obama/Rubio/Cruz/Hillary/etc.

      1. Trump isn’t a psychopath like the others you mentioned. He understands the meaning of “nuclear holocaust” but his policy on the Shia Crescent makes no sense and that is a hot spot where nuclear war could erupt depending on the policy he decides. He listens to the Neocons on tv. He mentioned Krauthammer. We have Gulf States wanting the subjugation and/or genocide of the Shia Crescent and we have Russia. We know Hillary offered Russia two options: nuclear war or submission. How can Trump please the Gulf States and Russia? There is a an allure to having other countries pay for the imperialism but then the US would feel more obligated to go to war on their behalf. I can imagine the Europeans paying up and then telling Donald to go fight Putin.

        I haven’t seen the part about China yet. I’ll check it out. A negotiation regarding North Korea would be a good thing.

        1. I agree with all you say. Trump could partially appease both Russia (eg. Ukraine) and the Gulf States, though I was hoping he would pursue a somewhat different foreign policy.

          With regard to paying for empire, I was hoping they’d end up revolting and just defending themselves as sovereign polities are wont to do. I rather like the idea of a multipolar world. I don’t think the US has any inherent motivation to war with anyone, so I’d rather leave the global domination to others. The way we’re positioned, we should be motivated towards almost complete isolation, though much trading and tourism.

        2. Making up shit like Hillary giving Russia a choice of submission or nuclear war is not helpful. Bring your mind back to reality and stop acting like a southern hillbilly.

          1. Did you not listen to her in the debates? She was going to setup a no fly zone. A US General was asked about it in Congress and he said there is no way to setup a no fly zone without going to war with Syria and Russia. How is she going to do that without either shooting Russian planes down or Russia cowering? She is serious about her war. Her intentions on war is the one place where she is not a compulsive liar.

            Awww, you want some narcissistic supply. Poor baby.

  3. Trump is the ‘Poster-Boy’ for Empire.

    ‘Calling-out’ the Empire as an Empire is the only way the people will ever accomplish anything. [period]

Comments are closed.